Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-scan checkouts and retail loss: Understanding the risk and minimising the threat

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Security Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using retailer case studies and a survey of employees, data are presented assessing the extent to which the introduction of self-scan checkouts in the retail environment affects the rate of shrinkage. It is argued that although available data currently suggest that they have little effect upon rates of shrinkage, the unique nature of the self-scan environment requires a more nuanced approach to the way in which crime prevention theory is used to understand the potential risks associated with this technology. It is concluded that retailers should think about creating ‘zones of control’ for self-scan areas and that offending behaviour generated by customer frustration with this technology offers further evidence of the way in which theories of neutralisation, situational prevention and cognitive dissonance can inform the increasingly complex interplay between consumers and retail spaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Providers of self-scan technology send out a mixed message concerning this depending upon the intended audience – some such as Fujitsu suggest that large retailers could save up to 150 hours of staff time per week (Fujitsu, 2006) whereas others prefer to couch the staff saving as an opportunity to redeploy staff to yet further improve customer service (IBM, 2008). Not surprisingly, most retailers employing this technology do not openly admit that they are introducing self-scan technology to cut back on staff costs, preferring to frame their decision more in terms of providing the customer with greater choice and convenience.

  2. An unpublished study noted that one retailer experienced a 30–40 per cent reduction in snack items, batteries, gums and soft drinks after installing SSCs and wryly described it as the ‘self-checkout diet plan’! (Evans and Dayle, 2009).

  3. The company has not agreed for this report to be made publicly available.

  4. For a more complete review of the survey data see Beck (2011).

  5. The range of alerts will vary depending upon the type of goods stocked and laws operating where the retail store is located.

References

  • Abelson, E. (1989) When Ladies Go a Thieving. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of Brazilian Supermarkets. (2005) Shrinkage in the Supermarket Sector. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Association of Brazilian Supermarkets.

  • Astor, S.D. (1971) Study of 1647 customers shows 1 in 15 a shoplifter. Stores, January: 8.

  • Bamfield, J. (1994) Article surveillance: Management learning in curbing theft. In: M. Gill (ed.) Crime at Work: Studies in Security and Crime Prevention. Leicester, UK: Perpetuity Press, pp. 155–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamfield, J. (1998) A breach of trust: Employee collusion and theft from major retailers. In: M. Gill (ed.) Crime at Work: Increasing the Risk for Offenders. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 123–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamfield, J. (2006) Sed quis custodiet? Employee theft in UK retailing. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 34 (11): 845–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamfield, J. (2010) The Global Retail Theft Barometer. Nottingham, UK: Centre for Retail Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumer, T.L. and Rosenbaum, D.P. (1984) Combatting Retail Theft: Programs and Strategies. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. (2004) Shrinkage in Europe 2004: A Survey of Stock Loss in the Fast Moving Consumer Goods Sector. Brussels: ECR Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. (2008) Preventing Retail Shrinkage: Measuring the ‘Value’ of CCTV, EAS and Data Mining Tools. Brussels: ECR Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. (2011) The Impact and Control of Shrinkage at Self Scan Checkouts. Brussels: ECR Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. and Peacock, C. (2009) New Loss Prevention: Redefining Shrinkage Management. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A., Chapman, P. and Peacock, C. (2002) Shrinking shrinkage: Developing a systematic approach to stock loss. ECR Journal, International Commerce Review 2 (2): 59–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, J.E. (1963) Curbing losses and errors in retail store operations. New York Certified Public Accountant, October: 706–714.

  • Carter, N., Holmstrom, A., Simpanen, M. and Melin, L. (1988) Theft reduction in a grocery store through product identification and graphing of losses for employees. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 21 (4): 385–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, P. and Templar, S. (2006a) Methods for measuring shrinkage. Security Journal 19 (4): 228–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, P. and Templar, S. (2006b) Scoping the contextual issues that influence shrinkage measurement. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 34 (11): 860–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R.V. (1980) Situational crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology 20 (2): 136–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R.V. (1997) Introduction. In: R.V. Clarke (ed.) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston, pp. 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D.B. and Clarke, R.V. (1986) The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cressey, D. (1970) The violators vocabularies of adjustment. In: E. Smigel and L. Ross (eds.) Crimes against Bureaucracy. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, pp. 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, P. and Thurman, Q. (2003) The devil made me do it: Use of neutralizations by shoplifters. Deviant Behaviour 24 (6): 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, B. (1960) Modern Retail Security. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, B. (1979) How to Keep Employees Honest. New York: Lebhar-Friedman Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck, J.E. and Weisburd, D. (1995) Crime places in crime theory. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd (eds.) Crime and Place. New York: Criminal Justice Press and Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECR Europe. (2010) Packaging Design for Shrinkage Management. Brussels: ECR Europe.

  • Evans, J. and Dayle, E. (2009) Self scanning: Profit or loss? RILA Auditing and Safety Conference. Orlando: RILA.

  • Dilonardo, R. (1997) The economic benefit of electronic article surveillance. In: R.C. Clarke (ed.) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. New York: Harrow and Heston, pp. 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilonardo, R. and Clarke, R.V. (1996) Reducing the rewards of shoplifting: An evaluation of ink tags. Security Journal 7 (1): 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felson, M. (2008) Routine activity theory. In: R. Wortley and L. Mazerolle (eds.) Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. Collumpton, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujitsu. (2006) U-Scan: The Fujitsu Self-Checkout Solution. Frisco, TX: Fujitsu.

  • Gabor, T. (1998) Everybody Does it!: Crime by the Public. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (2002) Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (1): 985–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handford, M. (1994) Electronic tagging in action: A case study in retailing. In: M. Gill (ed.) Crime at Work: Studies in Security and Crime Prevention. Leicester, UK: Perpetuity Press, pp. 174–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, R. (2007) Retail Security and Loss Prevention. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, R. and Cardone, C. (2006) Shoptheft. In: M. Gill (ed.) The Handbook of Security. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 302–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessee, T. (2003) Operational shrink: There's more to LP than preventing theft. Loss Prevention Magazine, January/February: 34–39, 61.

  • Hollinger, R.C. and Adams, A. (2008) 2007 National Retail Security Survey: Final Report. Gainsville, FL: University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollinger, R.C. and Davis, J.L. (2006) Employee theft and staff dishonesty. In: M. Gill (ed.) The Handbook of Security. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 203–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, S.D. and Proudlove, N.C. (2007) A statistical investigation of inventory shrinkage in a large retail chain. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 17 (2): 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM. (2008) Shrink and Self Checkout: Trends, Technology and Tips. New York: IBM.

  • Jeffery, C.R. (1977) Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klemke, L.W. (1992) The Sociology of Shoplifting: Boosters and Snitches Today. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2007) Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, G. (1997) Introduction: Towards a theory of situational crime prevention. In: G. Newman, R.V. Clarke and R.G. Shoham (eds.) Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, pp. 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, O. (1996) Creating Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. Washington DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K. (1997) Predicting the future: The role of routine activity and rational choice theory. In: G. Newman, R.V. Clarke and S.G. Shoham (eds.) Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, pp. 233–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Planet Retail. (2010) http://www.planetretail.net/CompanyAnalysis/RankingTop150CompaniesSelection.aspx, accessed 12 November 2010.

  • Purpora, P.P. (1993) Retail Security and Shrinkage Protection. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retail Automation Bulletin. (2009) Self checkout to drive growth in EPOS hardware spending. Retail Automation Bulletin 1: 2.

  • Sennewald, C.A. and Christman, J.H. (2008) Retail Crime, Security, and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sève, R. (1997) Philosophical justifications of situational crime prevention. In: G. Newman, R.V. Clarke and S.G. Shoham (eds.) Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, pp. 189–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapland, J. (1995) Preventing retail-sector crimes. In: M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington (eds.) Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 263–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, C. (1984) Excuses, excuses: They sometimes actually work – To relieve the burden of blame. Psychology Today 18: 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. and Matza, D. (1957) Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review 22 (6): 664–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, N. (1997) Realism, situational rationality and crime prevention. In: G. Newman, R.V. Clarke and S.G. Shoham (eds.) Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, pp. 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turbin, V. (1998) Shrinkage figures and data corruption: Lies, damned lies and statistics. In: M. Gill (ed.) Crime at Work: Increasing the Risk for Offenders. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, Room 1.03 1st Floor, 154 Upper New Walk, Leicester, UK

    Adrian Beck

Authors
  1. Adrian Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beck, A. Self-scan checkouts and retail loss: Understanding the risk and minimising the threat. Secur J 24, 199–215 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2011.13

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2011.13

Keywords

Search

Navigation